Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

[Seanm]

Hang on a minute, calling out ridiculous comments for being ridiculous is one thing but labeling the whole party is something different. The 2019 manifesto - which is the last time the party expressed policy, said, "We will ensure the powers exercised by the security services are proportionate and used in accordance with human rights."

Not exactly flame throwers and Muslamic rayguns!

That’s like saying Johnson’s letterbox jape was no big deal because it wasn’t in the manifesto. And 2019!? Haven’t you heard? Under new management mate. Since then the party’s backed the spy cop bill and the overseas torture bill, and we’ve learned in the last few days that the authors of the old manifesto were traitors who sided with enemies of the West, when they weren’t siding with criminals instead of victims.

This is all deliberate and systematic, and IMO unprecedentedly reckless and nihilistic. Using an international crisis to brandish their bollocks and spit on the left, calling down a far right-ridden, violent, corrupt police force on the very communities that bloody vote for them, having a good old laugh at the victims of police killings - nothing matters to these people except their own advancement.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Hang on a minute, calling out ridiculous comments for being ridiculous is one thing but labeling the whole party is something different.

No she's not the whole party. But she IS the deputy leader. And the comments were more than ridiculous they were monumentally crass and wrong headed. Especially in the light of the Met's recent performance. Revealing if this is what she actually thinks.

I guess the question is how will the party respond. My money's on them doing sod all.

 

[ks.234]

A bit odd that the centrists were quick to condemn Rayner for calling Johnson “scum”, yet supportive of her call for extra judicial killings.

 

[droodzilla]

Hang on a minute, calling out ridiculous comments for being ridiculous is one thing but labeling the whole party is something different. The 2019 manifesto - which is the last time the party expressed policy, said, "We will ensure the powers exercised by the security services are proportionate and used in accordance with human rights."

Not exactly flame throwers and Muslamic rayguns!

The whole party's full of this shit now.

They think it's the way to win the next election.

If they do, it will not be with my help.

 

[deanf]

I’m not arguing with some of the recent posts and I’m not defending the poor Parliamentary party decisions e.g. my own MP [prominent Momentum member] resigned as PPS to Angela Rayner [who got 41% first preference votes on a 63% turnout for deputy leader] to vote against the proposed Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill [as mentioned above] and now he is opposition whip for a leader [who is clearly not Momentum].

It’s all over the place. The party doesn’t have a USP yet, so you can’t say one comment from one person is reflective of the whole party.

nothing matters to these people except their own advancement.

You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

 

[Seanm]

I’m not arguing with some of the recent posts and I’m not defending the poor Parliamentary party decisions e.g. my own MP [prominent Momentum member] resigned as PPS to Angela Rayner [who got 41% first preference votes on a 63% turnout for deputy leader] to vote against the proposed Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill [as mentioned above] and now he is opposition whip for a leader [who is clearly not Momentum].

It’s all over the place. The party doesn’t have a USP yet, so you can’t say one comment from one person is reflective of the whole party.



You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

It’s not one comment from one person, it’s of a piece with Steve Reed’s and Starmer’s interventions this week: it’s part of a coordinated media campaign to act tough on crime and tough internationally, and (as ever) to “distance themselves from the left”. That campaign is consistent with everything the party’s done under Starmer, and everything this faction has done ever. Some of them believe you have to pretend to like war and authoritarianism to win power, and some of them just like war and authoritarianism, but none of them care about the harm this crap does to the communities they’re supposed to be representing.

I know these people don’t represent the whole party but they have near-total control of it and they’ve demonstrated that they’ll set fire to it rather than concede anything at all to the left. One of the reasons Rayner’s performance is so depressing is that she’s presented as the best hope of putting some manners on the real bastards at the top. But she’s no better, and on this and other evidence she is dangerously clueless.

 

[Tony L]

I guess from their perspective Corbyn’s utter failure has given ‘the left’ such a bad name the Labour brand-managers feel they have to overcompensate.

The problem with two party politics is it can never have even the slightest hint nuance or intellect. That market doesn’t exist. This is just red team/blue team tribalism and they’ll sell whatever the market research suggests produces the highest number of marginal seat results (the only ones that matter).Producing credible well-researched and viable policy strategies doesn’t come into it. UK politics is nothing more nuanced than “get Brexit done”, “education, education, education”, “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, “Oh Jeremy Corbyn” etc. It is just football chants targeted at morons.

 

[ks.234]

The fundamental issue is that both Rayner and Starmer have turned their backs on the people who voted them into power and betrayed the very principles that won them their votes, and are now trying to appeal to a wider electorate by being more right wing than the Tories.

I’m struggle to understand a mindset that sees the Tories as a threat to all things good and decent, but applauds when Labour goes further and further past even the Tory demarcation line of what is good and decent and into extra judicial killing.

Any party that advocates extra judicial killings is highly dangerous

Extra judicial killings? On what planet are extra judicial killing a good and decent thing?

FFS, Rayner’s comments take us closer to an extreme right wing dictatorship, not further away from it. Labour is threatening to make things worse than the Tories, not better.

 

[Tony L]

I have to admit I’m hugely disappointed in Rayner. I thought she was a lot better than this.

 

[deanf]

It seems to me Kier Starmer is trying to distance himself from the left enough to win the next election and / or see a mass exodus of hard leftist party members. Angela Rayner on the other hand is playing the long game and speaking to party members and affiliates. The next party leader will need the support of the unions, preferably momentum, and if you can get the women's vote to begin with you’re in with a good shout. A bit of something for everyone.

note. the turnout for the Labour Party leadership election was lower than the turnout for the last general election. There will be a lot of competition next time (Khan, Rayner, Burnham, etc).

 

[Seeker_UK]

FFS, Rayner’s comments take us closer to an extreme right wing dictatorship, not further away from it. Labour is threatening to make things worse than the Tories, not better.

Do you think she's advocating removing all rules of engagement and command and control from armed police operations? I don't. So the term "extrajudicial killing" is not correct.

I she spoke w/out thinking it through. Like a lot of politicians of all colours, this is SOP now. Wait for the retraction / apology on Twitter.

 

[Tony L]

The whole terrorist scaremongering is pure dog whistle bullshit. On average three times more people died from covid pretty much every single day in January than have from terrorist acts in the UK this century. Terrorism is thankfully less than a trace element risk factor in daily life. Not even a rounding error. The whole thing is just authoritarian soundbites to placate utter dickheads. Labour shouod be arguing about real things such as human rights, civil liberties, social care, education, international trade etc. Leave the authoritarianism to poundshop fascists such as Johnson and Farage.

 

[ks.234]

Do you think she's advocating removing all rules of engagement and command and control from armed police operations? I don't. So the term "extrajudicial killing" is not correct.

I she spoke w/out thinking it through. Like a lot of politicians of all colours, this is SOP now. Wait for the retraction / apology on Twitter.

Is shoot first and ask questions later legal under current law?

Surely under current law questions do have to be asked before opening fire. One question that springs to mind might be, “is this person an actual terrorist?”. Another might be, “is being foreign looking a good enough reason to shoot”.

The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes should suggest that the law needs to be tightened up, not relaxed.

 

[ks.234]

The whole terrorist scaremongering is pure dog whistle bullshit. On average three times more people died from covid pretty much every single day in January than have from terrorist acts in the UK this century. Terrorism is thankfully less than a trace element risk factor in daily life. It is just authoritarian soundbites to placate utter dickheads. Labour shouod be arguing about real things such as human rights, civil liberties, social care, education etc. Leave the authoritarianism to poundshop fascists such as Johnson and Farage.

But human rights, civil liberties, social care, education etc. we’re all things that Corbyn stood for, so that means that not only that the Labour Party can’t stand for them, but has to go in the opposite direction just to be seen to be putting some distance between itself and dangerously woke socialist ideas like human rights and civil liberties.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Is shoot first and ask questions later legal under current law?

It depends what you mean by that - that's not a legally recognised term.

Full rules about what can and can't be done are here:

https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...se-of-force-firearms-and-less-lethal-weapons/

Surely under current law questions do have to be asked before opening fire. One question that springs to mind might be, “is this person an actual terrorist?”. Another might be, “is being foreign looking a good enough reason to shoot”.

So there are 4 factors / questions to consider around the use of firearms as "reasonable force".

• Is the use of force lawful? (ie, is the aim one of those outlines in s3 of the Criminal Law Act, Police and Criminal Evidence Act or Common Law?)
• Is the degree of force proportionate in the circumstances?
• Were other options considered? If so, what were they and why were those options discounted?
• Was the method of applying force in accordance with police procedures and training?

The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes should suggest that the law needs to be tightened up, not relaxed.

Not necessarily. It does suggest that better training for the officers involved and the command and control in such events, as the inquiry recommended at the time.

I'm sure @Andrew C! can advise more detail

 

[Seanm]

Do you think she's advocating removing all rules of engagement and command and control from armed police operations? I don't. So the term "extrajudicial killing" is not correct.

I she spoke w/out thinking it through. Like a lot of politicians of all colours, this is SOP now. Wait for the retraction / apology on Twitter.

Come on. In context - of Labour's current Tough on Crime and Traitors media blitz - there's no way this can be seen as a spontaneous, unguarded remark. It was a calculated attempt to curry favour with her repulsive host and an imagined target audience and her only error was making it embarrassingly obvious: she turned the String 'Em Up dial to 11 when the strategy is to keep it at a nicely poised 6 or 7. She did this out of ignorance, political idiocy and an abundance of enthusiasm for the project. She hasn't a clue.

She's not advocating a change in the rules but *these things will come* if she gets into government: we know from the last time that even if they're doing this as a means to an end they never feel like they can stop doing it. Also they *like* doing it.

In the mean time words have consequences. Our deranged police forces will be emboldened, and black, working class and muslim communities will feel more vulnerable. For lots of people, the idea of the police kicking down the door at 3AM isn't something out of a crap Brit gangster flick, it's a real experience or realistic possibility. It's also not that long ago that British police systematically murdered random northern Irish catholics on the off chance that they *knew* terrorists. She ought to have some sense of all this! *Best case* scenario is that she doesn't, and that's completely damning for someone in her position. Just a complete idiot.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I she spoke w/out thinking it through.

To me that's the point. It's the stupid unguarded comments that sometimes give insight in how people think.

I quite like Rayner but there have to be serious consequences for any senior politician that says the police should shoot first, ask questions later.

 

[Andrew C!]

I've not read before this post, so please forgive me if my answers are out of context.

Is shoot first and ask questions later legal under current law?

Surely under current law questions do have to be asked before opening fire. One question that springs to mind might be, “is this person an actual terrorist?”. Another might be, “is being foreign looking a good enough reason to shoot”.

The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes should suggest that the law needs to be tightened up, not relaxed.

I responded extensively and carefully at the time of this incident, on here. I'm not going to go to that detail again, but research into the Police National Decision Model, and the 10 risk factors that accompany it, would prove very useful in adding depth to your suggestions. It's very easy to say 'what if' after such an incident. Sure, at a strategic level lessons were learned, but at an operational level...

Your questions re if this person in an actual terrorist - you need to look up Common Law 1977 for use of force. The other question you posed I'm not going to answer. Being 'foreign' enough?'

How about using 'what risk, threat and harm does the suspect intend or posses?'

Not necessarily. It does suggest that better training for the officers involved and the command and control in such events, as the inquiry recommended at the time.

I'm sure @Andrew C! can advise more detail

My training was fine. I understood my responsibilities and the consequences. I also understood that to be given a responsibility of this nature was very serious indeed.

 

[Woodface]

It’s becoming increasingly hard to keep up. Rayner, former darling of the left & Corbyn ally? Do Labour members need protecting from themselves as they have a terrible record of electing leaders & deputies.

Corbyn (twice)
Watson
Starmer
Rayner

I’ve only just clocked what Rayner said, she is the self titled ‘gobby northerner’, I may be paraphrasing there. It does appear that the Labour left is ultimately authoritarian.

What’s a voter supposed to do?

 

[Woodface]

I've not read before this post, so please forgive me if my answers are out of context.



I responded extensively and carefully at the time of this incident, on here. I'm not going to go to that detail again, but research into the Police National Decision Model, and the 10 risk factors that accompany it, would prove very useful in adding depth to your suggestions. It's very easy to say 'what if' after such an incident. Sure, at a strategic level lessons were learned, but at an operational level...

Your questions re if this person in an actual terrorist - you need to look up Common Law 1977 for use of force. The other question you posed I'm not going to answer. Being 'foreign' enough?'

How about using 'what risk, threat and harm does the suspect intend or posses?'



My training was fine. I understood my responsibilities and the consequences. I also understood that to be given a responsibility of this nature was very serious indeed.

It’s almost like it’s the politicians who need actual training?